There is nothing that I love more than discovering that our friends from the left have been caught with their hands down the trousers of children, hang on let me clarify that, I detest the abuse in fact there is nothing more abhorrent to me but I certainly do love it when the naive maleficence of the left is revealed. I had great joy in the discovery of the way that the prototype of the Australian Greens endorsed paedophilia     and a very spirited  debate in the comment thread. Any how it seems that another element of the left has been caught out flirting with nonces, this time its elements of the left wing of the British Labor party:

Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey in 1982 Photograph: Pa

But how did the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), whose affiliation to the NCCL has been exhaustively investigated by the Daily Mail, come to get a ticket to the party?

“It was an extraordinarily liberal period,” said Harry Fletcher, a criminal justice expert who at the time was the senior social worker for the National Council for One Parent Families. “The abortion laws had come in and capital punishment had been abolished.” People were pushing at every boundary – sexual, moral, legal. Fletcher recalled how the groups would spend hours debating whether the NCCL, which became the campaign group Liberty, should defend the right of someone with racist or homophobic views to express themselves. The discussion about defending the National Front’s right to march went on for months.

But by far the most divisive topic centred on the lowering of the age of consent. Many on the left thought that criminalising sexual behaviour between consenting teenagers was misguided and wanted it lowered to 14, a proposal endorsed by the NCCL’s executive committee. Others, like Fletcher, felt such a move would give a licence to older men to prey on young girls. Into this permissive climate crept the PIE, a group that actively promoted sex between children and adults and that was allowed not only to affiliate to the NCCL (in return for paying a £15 subscription) but enjoyed considerable recognition and support for its right to speak out on such issues.

The group inveigled itself so successfully into the NCCL that, as reported in the May 1978 edition of its magazine MagPIE, the council’s annual meeting passed a motion in support of PIE’s rights. Motion 39 stated: “This AGM reaffirms the right of free discussion and freedom to hold meetings for all organisations and individuals doing so within the law. Accordingly, whilst reaffirming the NCCL policy on the age of consent and the rights of children; particularly the need to protect those of prepubertal age, this AGM condemns the physical and other attacks on those who have discussed or attempted to discuss paedophilia, and reaffirms the NCCL’s condemnation of harassment and unlawful attacks on such persons.”

That motion was passed two years after Harman has claimed that the group no longer wielded influence in the NCCL. “They had been pushed to the margins before I actually went to NCCL and to allege that I was involved in collusion with paedophilia or apologising for paedophilia is quite wrong and is a smear,” she told the BBC last week. She said her husband had successfully fought to stop PIE having any influence in the NCCL in 1976 – two years before she joined as its legal officer.

Admittedly, any group could join the NCCL, which had more than 1,000 affiliate member organisations and the council’s motion probably owed more to defending the principle of free speech than defending PIE. And it would be wrong to portray PIE as a major force. Being small, comprising only a handful of activists and with a membership estimated to be between 300 and 1,000, PIE was not a powerful voice at a time when the main debates within the council were about sexual equality and race relations. But its views were so profoundly abhorrent to most of Britain that it is still hard to see why the council did not do more to disown PIE from the start.

click for source

What I find most darkly amusing about the report from the Guardian that I quote from is the headline “How paedophiles infiltrated the left and hijacked the fight for civil rights” there was clearly nothing covert at all about the creeps from PIE joining the NCCL they were entirely open about their beliefs and their desire to make their perversion more socially acceptable. there was therefore no infiltration, they asked to join and they were welcomed. That is what makes these minions of the left so culpable now.  Eventually PIE  were shunned by the NCCL but the shame of the left was that they were ever  allowed to have the supposed respectability of membership in the first place.

Am I the only one who sees a pattern here? The prototype of the Greens endorses paedophilia, the British Labor party is complicit in endorsing PIE so it seems to me  be in the DNA of the left to accept any expression  of abnormal sexuality . Can it be that the far left (and maybe those further from the extreme as well) might just have some equally vile skeletons in their collective closets?  OK that is enough Schardenfreude for this morning I realise taht the Australian left are of course just that little bit better than its European precursors but then again they don’t have much to say about followers of Islam who take the life of the Prophet as their template to “marry” pre-pubescent girls do they? Hmm maybe they are not that much better after all…

Cheers Comrades